Orem officials send letter to PacSun disapproving of store display

Tekekaretc, I've got a question for you, who are you to determine what
"role" women should play? Who are you to say to a woman that she is not
playing the correct "role" if she wants to be "sexy"?

I wonder if Mrs. Cox would have taken the same actions if the shirts had
depicted bare chested men.

It seems that a lot of people in society
feel they have the authority, or the responsibility, to tell women what they
should do, and how they should act.

markSalt Lake City, UT

March 28, 2014 2:33 p.m.

"You can't see the shirts because showing them in the media would
violate FCC rules."

Well, RedWings, maybe, if that were true. But
of course it's not. Did you just make that up?

"she is a
warrior fighting evil in our society."

Evil? These shirts?
Really? Evil? A warrior fighting evil? Good heavens. If she wants to fight evil
I can point her in the direction of some truly evil things going on. And it sure
ain't at PacSun.

Okay, it is really easy to find a picture of
these shirts. Maybe before people comment they should know what they are talking
about.

TekakaromatagiDammam, Saudi Arabia

March 28, 2014 11:15 a.m.

I once heard a talk given by a feminist author named Ulrich. She had reviewed
diaries of women on the American frontier. She said that they worked side by
side with their husbands. She contrasted it with the modern role of a woman who
living a life of luxury provided by their husbands. She said that women were
not asking for something new, but to have their old role back.

I
recently heard a talk given by another feminist. She decried how women are
objectified. She has three daughters and she says they are going to fight for
their roles as women.

Martin Luther King said that the real measure
of success should be the good that we do, not the wealth that we accumulate. In
that paradigm, the mother who raises children and serves others has more value
than the husband who earns money. Service and teaching is better than
wealth.

Pac-Sun is promoting a role for women as being sex objects
for men's pleasure. They are, after all, a corporation. That is a role
that women need to fight. Good for Orem and good for Ms. Cox for their
progressive stance.

Two For FlinchingSalt Lake City, UT

March 28, 2014 4:31 a.m.

@ Redshirt1701

This is only bad publicity to some people in Utah
County. Very few people outside of the bubble will think the shirts are a
problem.

@ WhyAmIhere?

Buzzfeed, Reddit (both extremely
popular websites for younger people), the New York Post, Yahoo, USA Today, and
even the Daily Mail (in the United Kingdom) picked up this story. I think
thousands visiting PacSun's website is a conservative estimate.

CBAXProvo, UT

March 27, 2014 9:35 p.m.

Unfortunately these days, most publicity (good or bad) is good for business

I know it. I Live it. I Love it.Provo, UT

March 27, 2014 7:50 p.m.

Willem,

Just because your city is home to hollywood, the porn
industry, and a history of all sorts of other filth... doesn't mean that
Utah wants to follow lead. And if Iran doesn't either, I applaud them.
Maybe we can find common ground on that point. How is that a bad thing?

I'd rather be in a country where women are treated better than they are
in L.A.

bullet56Olympia, WA

March 27, 2014 6:28 p.m.

If you believe in capitalism, and the conservative mantra that all jobs are good
jobs, then I say, Let this company display and sell what they want and let the
market place decide. Consumers vote with dollars, and this lady voted yes with
over 500 votes! If she is the arbitrator of what is offensive and not, then we
are all in trouble. This is America and "scantly clad" is just a way to
sell so many products. Products as diverse as cars, alcohol, vacation
destinations, hygiene products, football, and the Miss America pageant. I am
offended by the photos of abortion byproducts displayed by some at the
Women's Health clinic, but support the free speech aspect of what they say.

hermountsPleasanton, CA

March 27, 2014 4:43 p.m.

I'm glad the city of Orem took the action they did. On the other hand,
Judy Cox's gesture is likely to be futile for two reasons. First, when the
corporate bean-counters look at the latest sales report, they'll just see
how well those objectionable designs sold at the Orem store. They won't
know why. Second, if Mrs. Cox intends to return all those shirts, they'll
just end up back on the store shelves, if not in Orem, then somewhere else.

Mister JSalt Lake City, UT

March 27, 2014 3:47 p.m.

re: Esquire

"...I'm in the dark and we are arguing an
undefined hypothetical and we are forced to accept a premise set by a select
few."

That is a good summary of organized religion as well.

ObjectifiedTooele, UT

March 27, 2014 3:30 p.m.

@Willem:

It's because we live in America that people have the
freedom to voice their opinions through taking actions within the law. In Iran,
that wouldn't be possible. You seem to be a bit backwards with your logic.

@ Kalindra:

What makes you think the shirts were bought
under fraudulent conditions? The fact the store manager was actually embarrassed
to put them up in the first place (but forced to) means she might very well have
known Mrs. Cox intention of returning them when the sale was made. And since the
shirts will still be in new condition and returned within the return policy,
there is no fraud involved.

It simply appears your liberal ideologue
pride has been offended.

@ So-CalAggie:

It might surprise
you to know Mrs Cox was actually exercising her protected 1st Amendment right by
taking the action she did. People burn flags under the premise of free speech.
So why couldn't they buy t-shirts and later return them per store policy
per that some right?

It was also a free market conditions that
allowed her actions. As such, you appear to be the one who is actually
'blathering on".

bikeboyBoise, ID

March 27, 2014 3:01 p.m.

IMO, this is a wonderful narrative about FREEDOM!

PacSun engaged in
free enterprise by marketing some "edgy" T-shirts.

A woman
was offended by a display; she exercised her freedom by purchasing the T-shirts,
in a creative ploy to get them removed from public display.

Citizens
exercised their freedom to ask their elected officials to take action, and those
officials obliged. (Other citizens have disagreed - we can do that in a free
society.)

The (free) press wrote about it; we have freely commented
(within the bounds maintained by the moderators of the comment board).

I like this FREEDOM stuff! The give-and-take is better than government
mandates either allowing or banning the T-shirts.

(I'm not much
of a mall-goer, and haven't been in the Orem mall in probably 20 years.
But based on faded memories, I'm thinkin' I wouldn't have even
noticed the salacious PacSun T-shirts, if the Victoria Secret display was just a
couple windows down...)

God bless America!

So-CalAggiePark City, Ut

March 27, 2014 2:46 p.m.

Orem, Utah or Riyadh, Saudi Arabia? That or some liberal social engineering I
keep hearing conservatives blathing on about. Why not let the free market
decide? If the good, pious folks in Orem take offense to the shirts, why not
keep walking w/o a second glance? I'm curious too, where in the 1st
Amendment does it say speech is protected... unless it offends you, and then
well...then it's not protected.

BrioAlpine, UT

March 27, 2014 2:37 p.m.

@ Esquire:

You are right about what is obscene for one may not be
for another. But there's certainly nothing hypothetical about this
situation and no one is certainly being forced to accept any premise. It's
difficult to understand why you would say such a thing.

Most thinking
people will applaud someone else actually taking action concerning something
they find objectionable, especially when done within the confines of the law.
Mrs. Cox, the mayor and city council did exactly that. As such, they are to be
commended... whether one agrees with their particular degree of obscenity or
not. No one's personal freedom has been inhibited because of that stance.
They acted in a way they felt was best for their community. And that's
exactly part of what politicians are elected to do. It's too bad other
citizens and politicians are seldom as proactive. Public opinion seem to be more
supportive than against their actions.

RedWingsCLEARFIELD, UT

March 27, 2014 2:33 p.m.

D4inSLC:

Drinking alcohol at a restaurant is not the same as publicly
displaying doctored images of women in illicit poses. Sorry, not even close.

As I said earlier, these images destroy young women's self-esteem,
and turn them into object for young men. Studies show that when men are shown
suggestive pictures of women they resister in same part of the brain as when
they see a picture of a hammer! Women are tools! And that is caused my our
"porn" culture.

No one defrauded PacSun. Ms. Cox bought the
shirts and returned them under the company's return policy. Where is the
fraud? To me, she is a warrior fighting evil in our society. We should all
have as much intestinal fortitude.

@ Esquire: You can't see
the shirts because showing them in the media would violate FCC rules. That
should tell you what you need to know...

D4inSLCSALT LAKE CITY, UT

March 27, 2014 2:04 p.m.

Im getting a kick out of all of the moral high ground talk. Is it just in Utah
county where it is the moral high ground to attempt to defraud a company. There
is sufficient moral outrage to take the product, but not enough to actually pay
money to take the product off of the shelves. funny

@Nighshade - You
are correct, they are cute and very protective of their beliefs, which is fine.
I does get tiresome, however when it gets to be overreaching. For instance the
bars here have to put a wall up so the children don't actually see the
alcoholic drink being poured. I can hardly wait until I have to put a bag over
my head so they don't see me drinking it.

EsquireSpringville, UT

March 27, 2014 1:45 p.m.

@ SammyB, I don't know what the shirts look like. I've seen the
company website, but they have a lot of shirts. If the public could see what
the problem is, rather than take the word of a few while the shirts are hidden,
then let us make an informed judgment. The definition of pornography is not
clear. To paraphrase a Supreme Court Justice, we can't define it unless we
see it. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. What is obscene for one may not be
for another. But right now, I'm in the dark and we are arguing an
undefined hypothetical and we are forced to accept a premise set by a select
few.

WhyAmIhere?Cottonwood Heights, UT

March 27, 2014 1:00 p.m.

Two For Flinching

..This story was picked up by the national media
and thousands of people (including teenagers) went onto PacSun's website to
see the shirts that caused all of this. The irony is almost too much...

I don't know where you get your information that "thousands" went
to the pacsun website but I doubt the accuracy of the number. Even if it is
correct you are again assuming that they purchased something while there. If it
was just for the curiosity it really didn't do them any good. Visitors to
the website who leave without purchasing just confirm to the company that their
visitors are not interested in their product line. Thus the company will feel
compelled to change the line.

Again, not all publicity is good and
not all web traffic is useful.

Redshirt1701Deep Space 9, Ut

March 27, 2014 11:50 a.m.

To "Two For Flinching" actually there is such a thing as bad publicity.
Think about what has happened to Coke or food companies that have news stories
report that rats or body parts were found in their product.

If the
bad publicity shows that you have bad business practices you may get a bump, but
in the end it can kill your business. Think about "Totally Awesome
Computers". What happened when they got some bad publicity?

GBSilver Spring, MD

March 27, 2014 11:45 a.m.

Good for you, Ms. Cox! The world is a better place because of what you did.
Thank you.

I knew that many people were opposed to the government
"legislating morality," but it is odd that in this case, people are even
opposed to private citizens taking perfectly legal actions to uphold standards
of decency.

For those who feel that PacSun is being defrauded, I
think it is safe to assume that PacSun is on notice about the return potentially
coming its way, and if they feel that it is best for their business to decline
the return, they will.

SammyBProvo, UT

March 27, 2014 11:36 a.m.

What a lot of people here may not realize is how very explicit those t-shirts
were. They were on display in the front window right across from the Disney
Store, clearly seen by everyone.

The city attorney was dead wrong to
not pursue this. He was simply scared and was not following the law. This
t-shirt is pornography, pure and simple.

EliyahuPleasant Grove, UT

March 27, 2014 11:26 a.m.

While I can't speak to Christian belief, under Halachah (Jewish religious
law), what she did is considered theft. She purchased something with no intent
to keep it for the sole purpose of depriving the owner of the opportunity to
sell it to anyone else. Consider this: suppose she'd done the same with a
piece of real estate or a business that was for sale? It would be clear that it
was done for fraudulent purposes, even if she was sure that she was keeping it
from being sold to someone she didn't approve of. The only difference here
is one of scale.

Two For FlinchingSalt Lake City, UT

March 27, 2014 11:11 a.m.

@ WhyAmIhere?

There is no such thing as bad publicity. This story
was picked up by the national media and thousands of people (including
teenagers) went onto PacSun's website to see the shirts that caused all of
this. The irony is almost too much.

RedWingsCLEARFIELD, UT

March 27, 2014 11:00 a.m.

The reason the news media cannot show pictures of the shirts is becasue they
violate FCC rules on decency.

This ia all about the damage done to
children and society. A young girl sees the false image on the shirt and then
become anorexic or bulimic to fit what she sees as the "acceptable"
female image. A young man sees these images and is excited, so he seeks more
images. Soon he is addicted to hardore porn and cannot relate to a woman as a
human being.

All in the name of "free speech"..

Neither of these scenarios are fantasy. The happen every day. and BTW, 35
years ago I was the young man above. 2 failed marriages and years of putting my
current wife through the wringer, I am finally recovering from that
addiction.

These images do nothing but destroy people lives in the
end, and have no place in an "enlightened" society. Too bad the far
left is ignorant to that.

WonderProvo, UT

March 27, 2014 10:43 a.m.

Most people think fraud is immoral. Some people think immorality only involves
sex.

KMchenry, IL

March 27, 2014 10:04 a.m.

The images contribute to the sin of coveting. The sin of theft is in regards to
the store losing profits off the shirts having them in the clearance rack now
cause they were bought under a lie and then returned when new merchandise is
filling that space in the full price section.

What if a very rich
man from a country where women and men must be covered from neck to ankle bought
every single shirt and pant that wasn't long sleeve or ankle length in the
mall, intending to return for full refund and never intending to use the items
in the 60 day window? I don't see how this is different?

You
certainly can steal someone's prospective profits. On the flip side perhaps
she drew positive attention to the store and they got more sales? Usually if a
store doesn't have something in stock they order if for you on the website.
Chosing the right would be to ask authorities to consider if they violated any
laws. Even though they found they didn't violate any laws this is the one
act that she can be admired.

Robert JohnsonSunland, CA

March 27, 2014 9:37 a.m.

In other words: We reviewed it and legally there is nothing we can do because
they didn't violate any laws. However, we are afraid of the vocal
hyper-sensitive voters so we are going to send this letter saying that we
don't approve so that we can appease them.

Grow a spine and
stand up to these self-proclaimed morality police.

Bob A. BoheyMarlborough, MA

March 27, 2014 9:31 a.m.

As soon as your hear "think of the children", you can rest assured,
it's not about the children.

TekakaromatagiDammam, Saudi Arabia

March 27, 2014 9:24 a.m.

@Way of the Warrior: "Is this what conservative/religious governments
do?" You are quite correct. This is NOT what conservative governments do.
This is what liberal/religious governments do. A lot of people are shocked at
what Orem did because it challenges their stereotypes about Utah.

I
think that it would be cool if Orem banned the shirts. When the ACLU brought
action for violating PacSun's freedom of speech, they could appeal to the
Supreme Court and the justices could ask the ACLU, "Aren't you the ones
who argued that corporations don't have freedom of religion? So then why
are you arguing the corporations have freedom of speech?"

BdamajdCenterville, UT

March 27, 2014 8:55 a.m.

@willem.

I am pretty sure that Mrs. Cox already does her share to
help feed the homeless in Utah. The problems in this nation are not only
physical. The deterioration of the moral fiber in this country is a very real
thing. Yes, we all have freedoms, thank goodness. But our freedom ends where
someone else's begins. We cannot have freedom without consequences. When
something is wrong in society, we have the freedom to do something about it. It
is so amazing to me that the only people who seem to cry for freedom are the
ones who don't seem to care about other people's freedom. Mrs. Cox has
the freedom to do what she feels necessary to protect her children as long as
she is not infringing on someone else's freedom. Since moral decency is no
longer "politically correct", our nation will continue to be more and
more corrupt. Woe unto them who call evil good and good evil.

WhyAmIhere?Cottonwood Heights, UT

March 27, 2014 8:52 a.m.

To those who argue that Pacsun got free publicity... what makes you think that
publicity was good? There are many who will now be more likely to avoid
shopping there. Not all publicity is good.

BdamajdCenterville, UT

March 27, 2014 7:50 a.m.

I have to say that I agree with Missouri Coug and Pops on this one! I think many
of the people are forgetting Mrs. Cox's real purpose here. It wasn't
to make it so no one else could BUY them. Her purpose was most likely to get it
out of the sight of children, teens and adults. Can she do this for everything
she finds offensive? Probably not, unless she is a millionaire. But what she
did, even though it may have been free publicity for PacSun, was to stand up for
what she believed in and she did so quickly and concisely. How many of you
parents would not at least try to cover your children's eyes if someone
came by and stopped right in front of you with little or no clothing on? This is
what Mrs Cox did for countless children who could simply walk by and see this.
You might say that they will see it anyway. That is true. But if we have the
ability to do something about it, why not do it. Why not stand up for what is
right?

NoodlekaboodlePoplar Grove, UT

March 27, 2014 7:46 a.m.

Even if Pac-Sun literally has to throw these shirts in the trash it costs them,
at most 600 bucks in potential income. $600 bucks doesn't get you a TV ad
on the local news. They couldn't have got cheaper advertising if they
begged for it.

JamescmeyerMidwest City, USA, OK

March 27, 2014 7:43 a.m.

On the one hand, I don't like this abuse of a store's return policy.
On the other, imagine how much happier and more successful we'd be as
communities, states, and a nation if every good person stood up and exerted this
much effort to keep from being silenced or pressured.

TimBehrendAuckland NZ, 00

March 27, 2014 7:22 a.m.

I think many parents are naive about the sorts of images their children have and
seek access to if they think 'sexually charged' (useless reporting,
DN) t-shirts will precipitate their ruin.

CHS 85Sandy, UT

March 27, 2014 7:20 a.m.

It's a human body -shield your eyes!!!!!!

JoeBlowFar East USA, SC

March 27, 2014 7:19 a.m.

"Of course she can return them. Is there small print after the words 30 day
return policy? Does it say except for this or that or this or that."

This whole thing is about what is legal or illegal vs right and wrong.
It would appear that what pacsun displayed is not illegal, but still wrong in
some minds.

So, to counter that, the return may be technically within
the store policy, but falls outside of the "whats right" boundary.

Picketing the store to get people to not shop there is a much more
reasonable way to address the problem.

Two technically legal but
questionable ethically wrongs don't make a right.

EsquireSpringville, UT

March 27, 2014 6:43 a.m.

So they can sell the shirts on April 16th to more people who were drawn to the
store by the extra publicity and who otherwise wold not have bought them.
Brilliant.

PopsNORTH SALT LAKE, UT

March 27, 2014 6:25 a.m.

It was appropriate for city officials to send the letter. Just because something
is legal doesn't necessarily make it right, appropriate, or desirable. Good
for them for complaining about the distasteful and offensive rather than just
letting it go.

It is unfortunate that so many people desire to enjoy
the benefits of living in communities with high standards, but don't wish
to participate in upholding the high standards that create the positive
environment, and sometimes even participate in trying to tear down those
standards.

Missouri CougGreenwood, MO

March 27, 2014 6:12 a.m.

She bought all of the shirts to get them off the market AND to SHOW to the City
Leaders what she was talking about, BEFORE getting her money back....Thanks for
being a person of concern for the GOOD in society....TOO BAD more people are not
as concerned as to what is happening to the youth of this country....

WillemLos Angeles, CA

March 27, 2014 6:08 a.m.

What country are some of these commenters living in? This is America not
Iran.Its all so stupid, a nasty T-Shirt is gonna hurt your family! Shop
somewhere else and if you are looking to make some points with the Lord you
could start feeding the homeless in Utah!

NighshadeActon, MA

March 27, 2014 6:07 a.m.

From Massachusetts,

Ok, you're a Mormon-dominated culture and
maybe a bit on the stodgy side. But you guys out there are cute. You really are.
Especially considering all the stuff our kids can see on the Internet, movies,
magazines, books, etc. But hey, ya gotta take a stand somewhere! Maybe we could
use some good old-fashioned Mormon values here back East. Next time a couple of
Mormons come to my door to convert me, (it happens) I'll tell them,
"Right on! Instead of coming after me, go challenge some store displays!
They're ruining our kids! Especially those kids who are downloading porn as
we speak."

Seriously speaking, I support anything you can do to
keep Utah a bit slowed down from our nationwide slide into the sewer, I'm
for it. Even if I poke a bit of fun at you, I know you're good people who
mean well.

KTC JohnWetumpka, AL

March 27, 2014 6:01 a.m.

K: How do you know that the store does not have a
"no-questions-asked" return policy? That is the norm. Stores do not
generally inquire into the undisclosed mental operations of their customers or
conduct an interrogation when accepting returned merchandise. Are you engaged
in strained sophistries in an attempt to make good evil?

BU52Provo, ut

March 27, 2014 5:49 a.m.

lots of stone throwing going on here. I applaud Orem for trying to deal with
this without making another law or policy that would effect everyone and be very
difficult to write. Even a judge on the Supreme Court said, "Pornography, I
can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

Joshua SteimleDraper, UT

March 27, 2014 5:35 a.m.

Is it the role of government to delve into such things? Can't we solve
these issues without involving the authorities? And what about Victoria's
Secret?

CBAXProvo, UT

March 27, 2014 1:57 a.m.

objectification of women is A-O,K!

/sarcasm off

Two For FlinchingSalt Lake City, UT

March 27, 2014 12:52 a.m.

Pac Sun is the big winner here. They got a ridiculous amount of free publicity,
and Mrs. Cox came off looking ridiculous.

The cherry on top of this
story is still to come, and it will be one of two scenarios: 1) They don't
allow her to return the merchandise. Or 2) They take the shirts back, put them
on sale for 80%, and the teenagers of Orem will swarm to the store and buy them
all.

werSouth Jordan, UT

March 26, 2014 10:54 p.m.

So many consumers, especially in Utah, have a really causal approach to such
things. "Oh, well, that store shouldn't do this or that or that movie
shouldn't include such and such language or violence/sex...etc" and we
just move on thinking that somebody else will do something about it. Well,
somebody did and she should be given a medal!

While the city of Orem
did everything they could not to cite the offending company, at least they took
a modest public stand. Good for them.

Next, there seems to be such a
reluctance for people to stand against what is offensive to adults. It's
almost always, "The children could be watching." While this is all fine,
there's plenty to find upsetting in society that more adults, like this
mother, could do to stand up and proclaim, "Enough is enough! What you are
showing is offensive, degrading, and/or just plain wrong!"

Finally, the best response is for people to simply not buy the merchandise or
the ticket or the cable programming, etc.

Hey It's MeSalt Lake City, UT

March 26, 2014 10:13 p.m.

Of course she can return them. Is there small print after the words 30 day
return policy? Does it say except for this or that or this or that.

ClarissaLayton, UT

March 26, 2014 9:59 p.m.

I'm impressed that she actually did something. Most people whine, but do
nothing. Our world is going down the drain.

Ernest T. BassBountiful, UT

March 26, 2014 9:54 p.m.

Pac Sun thanks you for all the free publicity.I hope they will not accept
the return.

KalindraSalt Lake City, Utah

March 26, 2014 8:20 p.m.

Since the shirts were purchased under fraudulent curcumstances, the store has
every right to not accept the return.

@ Spellman789: There is a
wrong way and a right way to make a stand - this was not the right way.

Spellman789Syracuse, UT

March 26, 2014 8:05 p.m.

I applaud her for taking a stand. Whether you think it was right or not, she
took action for something she saw as a problem for her, her family, and society.

Young ModerateLogan, UT

March 26, 2014 6:49 p.m.

While I agree this was distasteful on the part of PacSun, I am afraid that what
Samwise said above is correct. Her plan backfired. All she did was generate free
publicity for PacSun. You can find articles on this story all over the web
including some national news sites. Even if they lose money on the sale when she
returns all of the shirts it will be money well spent.

I know it. I Live it. I Love it.Provo, UT

March 26, 2014 6:45 p.m.

K,

They have every right to turn around and sell the shirts at full
price or clearance or burn them and eat the cost. You can't steal
someone's potential profit. Otherwise, if I convinced everyone that
"Frozen" was lame, Disney could sue me. There is nothing rational or
legal about it.

Coveting something isn't wrong. That simply
means desiring something.

Coveting your neighbors wife, home, or
property is wrong. Someone else's property or love isn't yours to
desire. She doesn't want the shirts. She wants other people's business
transactions and marketing to promote things good instead of harmful. It's
not coveting, nor is it wrong. Possibly flawed, though I'm not convinced it
is, but her character and actions were good.

None of us are perfect.
The only perfect method is following the Savior. She may have done that with a
sloppy butter knife. We aren't always going to spread butter the same way.
What matters most is that we spread it with the same purpose... to give someone
bread who needs food. I'm sure there is a more appropriate method, but she
did just fine.

Way of the WarriorArlington, WA

March 26, 2014 6:39 p.m.

Is this what conservative/religious governments do? Talk about government
intrusion into personal freedom of expression and choice. The fact that no
obscenity laws were broken makes the Mayor's, Council's, and City
Attorney's letter of rebuke completely inappropriate.

gittalopctbiGlendale, AZ

March 26, 2014 6:05 p.m.

I support what she did without criticism and I applaud her and the city of Orem
officials for taking a stand.

I know it. I Live it. I Love it.Provo, UT

March 26, 2014 5:40 p.m.

I'd hardly call the "women" and leave it alone at that...

They are women who are 90% nude and suffer from corporate-fed starvation based
on the pandemic of amorality that has plagues the U.S. at the rate that content
can be delivered in a more potent and private format. What is on the shirts is
not women. It is a product, object, disposable toy, and replaced and forgot as
soon as a new model is manufactured.

We ought to women with sacred
respect, love, and care. Not as a photoshop-manufactured disposable toy.

We can cite addiction and family statistics all day and people will not
be convinced. The truth is, we are all beings of intelligence and no one can
alter the truth. All we can do is submit ourselves to what is true or foolishly
reject it in favor of some other desire.

How we treat women,
children, and the integrity of the family God designed is simply an IQ test for
the world on what it means to be human, to be happy, and to live peacefully. But
peace will never exist when women, children, and families are under attack.

KMchenry, IL

March 26, 2014 5:16 p.m.

A return or exchange is for when the gift receiver doesn't like it or it
doesn't fit. If they allow the return and it goes on 80% off clearance then
a case could be made morally you stole hundreds from them. Theft and coveting
are immoral. Two wrongs don't make a right. A complaint and a determination
from the city council was the appropriate thing to do. I do think the city
council was correct, it is not illegal. Distasteful, but then don't buy it.

SamwiseEagle Mountain, UT

March 26, 2014 5:15 p.m.

Wait... she said they are inappropriate and her solution was to buy them all,
thus giving this business (and others) incentive to do the same thing. I
can't comment on whether I agree with her or not on them being
"inappropriate" since I haven't seen them myself, but I seriously
doubt that was the best solution. Especially since it got publicity, it could
inspire other businesses in Utah County to copycat. "hey everyone, ultra
conservative Mormons are buying up inventory they are offended by! hurry and
stock your shelves with ________. Make sure it is prominently displayed to the
public for optimal effect." For the record, I am a conservative Mormon. But
her methods are not great.